ABSTRACT
Change and continuity are elusive prey. By contrast, cause and consequence are easier to trap. History teachers from all stables invariably know what a causation question looks like: Why was there a Russian revolution? How important was Islamic scholarship in shaping the Renaissance? The analytic imperative of a causation question is clear. Moreover, because the validity of any causal explanation is relative ‘to the questions posed as well as to what is known about the past’ (Lee and Shemilt, 2009: 47), such explanations can be neither definitive nor exhaustive. Students have a reason to experiment. They can select, classify, connect or prioritize their causes until they find explanatory power. The cognitive challenge readily reveals itself. Because students must construct their own causal explanation, their own argument, it is self-evident that there is something for them to do.
